WashU vs. UChicago

[HiddenTruth]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I am having a hard time deciding between the two. From what I've read, WashU seems to have an edge above Chicago. But, Chicago is much cooler city (albeit, a$s cold). I am from the midwest, so both regionally located--with WashU being closer. Do you guys think there's a significant disparity between the strength of the program and the fellowship opportunities? I am interested in cards.

I was also tossing around UCLA in this batch, but after looking at their fellowship list (hard to make much of it with Cal having 80% of the cards matches), I've decided to struggle with these two instead. Would appreciate the inisght. Thanks.

 

[Chalazion12]

UChicago really has great residents and the program is top notch. Like you said, the city is much better with lots more to do. The match list for UChicago is unbelievable. I would def rank UChicago over WashU

 

[Crosnmafingers]

UChicago really has great residents and the program is top notch. Like you said, the city is much better with lots more to do. The match list for UChicago is unbelievable. I would def rank UChicago over WashU

Don't know if that's the most educated opinion... That being stated, Wash U has an "unbelievable" match list. Here it is: http://meded.im.wustl.edu/Resources/atr_where_they_are_now2007.pdf

If you're interested in Cards, last year, they sent people to UPenn, Duke, Cleveland Clinic, UTSW, and of course, Wash U. Other great subspecialty matches too, but you can click on the link to check it out. I doubt many programs (even U Chicago) have this kind of match list.

I think that St. Louis is fine and littered with social options for a resident's lifestyle and AFFORDABLE; btw, Chicago is not.

I'm not a resident there, but I'm tired of people knocking this great program. It's got fun people, great faculty, lots of money, great research opportunities, and awesome fellowship placement. I guess it's not for everyone (especially not for the above poster), but it does well with the people it attracts.

 

[Chalazion12]

Actually what I said was very educated and backed by evidence. When I interviewed at UChicago they showed us a match list and it included great places for Cards, GI, and others:

Cards (2007): Yale, BID, Vanderbilt, Emory, UChicago (2), Brown, Loyola, Tufts

GI (2007): Rush, BWH, UNC, UChicago

So as you can see UChicago is a great place to train in a wonderful environment that is really layed back and gives you great opportunity for career goals. WashU is great too, and I would go there if you prefer a more malignant program in a not very nice city

 

[0382938]

Please say why you think Wash U is "malignant"?

 

[Crosnmafingers]

I'll echo the same question: how is Wash U malignant?

 

[Chalazion12]

Sorry I didn't really mean to stir up controversy, but I'd describe WashU as malignant because one of my friends is actually an intern there. He said they have a lot crap work they have to do like draw blood, etc. WashU is a great program, no doubt...I just think other programs may be a better fit for different people

 

[Crosnmafingers]

Sorry I didn't really mean to stir up controversy, but I'd describe WashU as malignant because one of my friends is actually an intern there. He said they have a lot crap work they have to do like draw blood, etc. WashU is a great program, no doubt...I just think other programs may be a better fit for different people

Sorry, buddy. Every intern draws blood. Show us any objective evidence you may have to attest to your assertion that Wash U is "malignant." Because I think you're full of it...

I'm tired of people smearing Wash U on these message boards. I interviewed there for residency and I'll interview there for fellowship. It's a wonderful program; I matched at another program for residency 2/2 family reasons. It's true, if you're into living in Chicago, then U of Chicago may be for you. But if you want better fellowship placement (anyone think that Cleveland Clinic, Penn, and Duke are trumped by ANY U Chicago placement last year?), protected research time (through the C-STAR program) and grant money (through the MIM program), Wash U is a great match for anyone.

 

[duncan11]

Sorry I didn't really mean to stir up controversy, but I'd describe WashU as malignant because one of my friends is actually an intern there. He said they have a lot crap work they have to do like draw blood, etc. WashU is a great program, no doubt...I just think other programs may be a better fit for different people

I am an intern at Wash U. It is not a malignant program. Our work hours are very reasonable. Attendings and upper residents are very easy to work with. It is in general a pretty informal environment. Most residents help out their interns quite a bit with things that are typically intern work (admitting/discharging paperwork and making calls).

We do not routinely draw blood. If the tech cannot get a blood draw, then the nurse tries, the another nurse tries, then they will call us. At which time you will go see that the patient is likely extremely large with not a visible vein in sight and will likely art stick the patient for labs if warranted. I get this call maybe once a month which is a pretty good success rate for the nurse/techs I think. The Barnes nurses are actually pretty amazing at getting blood and putting IVs in when I am certain that they won't be able to based on the 200 kg size of the pt.

 

[velo]

I am a med student at Wash U and am always shocked when someone throws up something like "the program is malignant" on these message boards. I can't imagine what these comments are based on. Wash U treats its residents as good or better than any other program I saw on the interview trail. The leadership is kind and approachable, the attendings are knowledgeable and invested in your education, and they have a nightfloat system for chrissake! I don't know how you can call a program, where I sometimes worked from 7am-8pm ON A CALL DAY malignant...

Anyway, Wash U vs UChicago--I thought they were both great programs. I thought UChicago's focus was a little heavy on the basic science, which is great, but I'd like a program with stronger clinical research. I thought on totally objective criteria both were in the same ballpark in terms of the nebulous "quality of program" metric...I'd give a slight edge to Wash U but I'm biased. And the cities? I'm from Chicago and think it is clearly an awesome city, but location is certainly a personal thing. I've loved my time in St Louis--it is most certainly not a big city, its a giant small town which may be a plus or a minus depending who you are. The bonuses are its affordable, its charming, its easier to live here (I think), the people are friendly, and you can find most of the trappings of a big city here in terms of culture, night life, sports, etc...just a bit toned down.

Good luck with your choice, but based on your other posts I wouldn't stress too much about anything on your rank list other than who's #1 and #2.

 

[HiddenTruth]

Velo, and others--thanks for all the input. Appreciate it much. Last day to manipulate things....